Home

Daily Wrap and Flow

Reading the Daily Wrap and Flow is a quick and easy way to follow the ebb and flow of the trial. This link will always contain the latest commentary making it easy to bookmark. This column is updated throughout the day with the latest commentary placed at the top. If you prefer external links to use a full screen see help.

March 20, 1999 - (Court not in session. Microsoft continues to violate the law)

1:15 PM PST - ProComp claims Microsoft acts contradict testimony given under oath.

Microsoft's act since the time testimony under oath was presented by Microsoft witnesses does contradict that testimony. But, it goes far beyond "contradiction". It is perjurious.

Did any of those Microsoft witnesses know that IE 5 was to be released as a separate application when they testified under oath? I can only assume that they did. It is not important that IE could be offered only as a part of the OS. It clearly could. But, it never has been. IE 5 betas were not limited to being part of the OS anymore than any other application that Microsoft Corporation has ever distributed (in fact, less so). With full knowledge of the separation of IE from the OS, those witnesses swore under oath that IE and the OS were a single product. That fact has always been false. It remains false. That testify was false and intended to defraud the court. It was perjurious.

I specifically recommend that any person interested in this matter contact the DOJ directly and insist that perjury charges be investigated on this issue. No person or corporation has the right to present knowingly false information for the purpose of defrauding the court. No person has the right to lie in court under oath. The only question is whether the Microsoft witnesses knew that their testimony was false when they gave it. Maybe the Microsoft witnesses were mislead? Maybe they did not know about the IE 5.0 beta program. Maybe they did not know about the pending release of IE 5.0 totally independent of any OS. Maybe they were kept in the dark.

Or. Maybe, just maybe they were encouraged to lie about the truth by their superiors and their lawyers? Did the Microsoft lawyers know for a fact that IE 5.0 was to be released as a separate product? They can claim to be ignorant if they want. Have they? The Microsoft lawyers did claim to be ignorant of the bogus videos. As I recall, one of them even vouched for the video the day before it was discovered that what they intended to show, could not be shown. So maybe their high lawyers know very little about their own case. It is possible. Either way, it requires an investigation.

March 19, 1999 - (Court not in session. Microsoft continues to violate the law on a daily basis.)

10:50 AM PST - It is time to consider charging one or more Microsoft witnesses with perjury.

It is one thing to fabricate a set of facts which might give rise to a possible defense in a legal action. It has been very clear that one (if not the only) motive for "integrating" the browser with the OS was to avoid being require to compete with Netscape in that market. At first it was only a consent decree that had to be side stepped. Remember? They actually agreed to not require the purchase of IE in order to buy the consumer OS. But, the agreement permitted ongoing improvements to the OS and so Microsoft just fabricated this story about IE being "integrated" with the OS.

Microsoft even went so far in preparing the current DOJ law suit as to encourage a couple of witnesses under oath to swear that the OS and IE were only one product. It is a legal argument that Microsoft wants to make before this judge and before the appellate court if necessary. The argument simply suggests that if there is only one product then no tieing could have taken place. Microsoft lawyers have made certain that several witnesses have testified to the "singularity" of the OS product. This permits the lawyers to make the argument.

There is only one problem. Their testimony was false. Their testimony was knowingly false. Their testimony was highly material to the antitrust case simply because it goes to the heart of Microsoft key defense.

The act of testifying falsely offered under oath for the specific purpose of defrauding the court is perjury.

IE 5 is just now being released by Microsoft Corporation as an application. (Not for the first time. But, clearly yet another time.)

Clearly each of the Microsoft employees who testified under oath were fully aware of the plan to design, develop and distribute IE as a separate and distinct product. (Those employees who have no responsibility in this area may not have been aware of this plan. But, a number of them clearly were in on the process.)

Microsoft Corporation and its employees and witnesses have presented intentionally false evidence before the court. It is perjury. And, the Microsoft lawyers have arranged it all as part of their attempt to defend Microsoft Corporation.

Microsoft Corporation is clearly corrupt beyond repair. It ignores any law that gets into its way. And, now it has encourage perjury as well.

Any defendant has the right to defend themselves in court. They NEVER have the right to lie in the process of that defense.

March 16, 1999 - (Court not in session, Microsoft continues forcing the sale of IE upon all consumers)

1:00 PM PST - ProComp releases a detail summary of the Microsoft Trial

11:55 AM PST - The discussion of possible remedies is relevant.

The court is currently in recess. However, Microsoft continues to force the sale of unwanted products upon all consumers. So, as long as they continue their illegal sales efforts, it is appropriate that the public discussion of possible remedies continue even during the recess.

I have drafted a short article which discusses possible restructuring of Microsoft. The ideas expressed have been discussed briefly in previous articles. However, I have tried to expand on some of the reasons for making this suggestion and the impact it is likely to have on Microsoft employees, stockholders and the computer software industry. Take a look at the article. If you think it makes sense you are more than welcome to forward copies of it to either the DOJ or other industry organizations that are considering alternative remedies in detail. If you disagree in any way or wish to publish a reply, please let me know. I can either publish your reply here or link to any URL you may wish to use.

March 15, 1999 - (Court not in session, Microsoft continues violations of antitrust laws)

11:00 AM PST - "ProComp" releases a fine executive summary on the trial to date.

The ProComp organization does a fine job of summarizing the case so far. If you have not checked their page occasionally, do so.

10:15 AM PST - "Internet Explorer 5.0", a trademarked non product is ready to release

I find it very interesting that Microsoft hires high priced antitrust lawyers to argue in a court of law that IE 5.0 is a non product while they simultaneously prepare to release that very product separate and apart from any OS.

Despite Microsoft's public assertions that they will win their antitrust trial their public acts suggest otherwise.

I can not wait until the Microsoft lawyers attempt to convince members of the Supreme Court that even though Microsoft purchased the trademark rights for Internet Explorer (after the DOJ acted to block the forced sale of IE) and has consistently acted to market and distribute IE as a separate and distinct internet application, that it somehow is mysteriously part of an operating system. IE fits the definition of an application precisely both by design and by distribution methods employed by Microsoft itself.

IE is only part of the OS when Microsoft wants to force its sale or defend antitrust charges. Otherwise, in all cases, IE is a separate and distinct application. It even has its own branding, betas, releases, trademarks and yes, Virginia, separate distribution by CD-Rom and file download over the internet. (I wonder if IE has been fixed to allow file downloads greater that 12 MBs?)

Sometimes lawyers should not be believed in court because their arguments are just stupid. This is one of those cases.

The other argument that Microsoft is sure to make is that bundling an application with the OS benefits consumers. While the evidence in trial clearly points out that any and all benefits that might be realized by the consumer using IE can be realized if IE were sold separately (as Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel are sold separately), Microsoft will somehow put together the words in an effort to convince the court that such benefits can only be achieved if all consumers are forced to buy IE and have it pre installed by the OEM.

This argument is likewise a "stupid" one. The very nature of computer software applications are such that they can be installed after the OS is up and running.

But, then I guess the lawyers hired by Microsoft have no idea what computer software is or how it works. (Either that, or they do know and just hope they can fool the court. They may be able to fool a lot of consumers. I do not think they will fool the Supreme Court.)

Home - Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.